If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There are not editions of Qt, it is all the same source code, just available under different licenses. LGPL/GPL (free), or if you pay money, you get a commercial license without the GPL/LGPL restricitons and get paid support.
The Qt free agreement garuntees the free licensing option of Qt will always exist. If that option were to be removed tomorrow, KDE automatically get's to relicense Qt under any open source license they choose, (be it BSD, LGPL, ect.).

dont bother he is like bo$$ that choose to not read the part of the post/evidence/links/etc that prove him wrong and make it look like an idiot to sadly trying to keep the troll active

and either way if this guy is actually a master lawyer genius and saw an actual defect that thousand of eyes missed, who in this universe imagine aaron seijo the guy who have put in hold the vivaldi tablet project until he could find open source friendly hardware providers in the ARM sector that has never even made a closed source KDE application and actually put a lot of weight for trolltech to release Qt as GPL back in the day that actually runs the KDE foundation which is the holder and a non-profit organization, will freaking make Qt closed source again? LOL richard stallman will make the GNU stack propietary and sell it to Apple for sandwiches first

Gtk has many technical merits and Qt has many nice cool features, what i mean if you merge the good in both into 1 badass toolkit would remove a lot of duplication that exist this day. i mean you can always find an application in gtk that do the same than an Qt one and it exist just because one is gtk and the other is Qt.

this would remove all the duplication and efforts wasted in make gtk apps look like Qt one or viceversa that if you ask me will help a freaking lot to keep experience among different desktop a lot more cleaner.

Eh, not entirely. The whole GTK/Qt divide isn't that big of a deal (well, aside from theming problems and GTK's silly Open dialogue). The bigger reason for effort duplication is integration with the desktop environment itself (so using libgnome/libkde*). That integration can be quite important to the application itself, too (like Kraft, which absolutely needs Akonadi and KDE PIM in order to function).

Originally Posted by ShadowBane

The main 'technical merit' that I have seen in favor of GTK is that it is written in C and a bunch of Gnome devs are irrationally afraid of C++. Unfortunately this makes it more difficult to use and less feature rich than Qt. Honestly, I have never understood GTK.

I wish there were Qt bindings for C. That way you could use Qt with code written in C easily. But alas that's not the case.

well gtk is a bit more memory aware, it support web integration[very cool feature], used to work better than Qt with software rendering, widgets are actually double buffered since while ago and i think their theme engine was very well thought[gtk2 times].

I have to wonder how GTK is more memory aware when Qt manages the memory of its objects and everything is implicitly shared (copy on write everywhere.) A web backend should be pretty easy to write for Qt5 (because of lighthouse) but isn't really important, so it hasn't been a priority. (There was a demo that rendered using ascii though.)

This is not true. Digia differs very mich between Qt Free editon and Qt.

The difference between the GPL version of Qt and the licensed version is the lisence. There actually isn't another difference ( I guess level of support, but that isn't really a difference in the code. )

Diga does have a module or two that they wrote from scratch that they sell, but these components are licensed seperately form commercial Qt and there is nothing about this practice that is different than anything any other company could do.

This is not true. Digia differs very mich between Qt Free editon and Qt.

So why do they never mention that difference on their website? Every single announcement they made only talks about "Qt". If you should stumble across it you for sure read an old announcement they inherited from nokia/trolltech.

Thing is, despite all that trolling about how evil Qt supposedly is, it's the best toolkit under a free license. If Qt was so very evil, why is GTK so bad? One would think everybody would flock to it to make it better…
Xfce is the last mainstream Linux shell that's written using GTK.
GNOME Shell is written with Clutter. So is Cinnamon.
Plasma Workspaces never were written in GTK, Unity uses Nux and will switch to Qt, and now LXDE has been ported to Qt. (OK, maybe you can count MATE as major shell.)
And while I'm aware of GIMP’s roadmap, the GIMP team hasn't really been in a hurry to make the jump to GTK3.

Firstly, from what I gather, LXDE at this point has an optional, experimental Qt backend. They haven't said anywhere that they're andoning or stopping development of the GTK backend. It's a bit premature to say "LXDE has moved to Qt".

Most desktops probably will move away from GTK+2 and Qt4, and towards GTK+3, Clutter and Qt5 when Wayland arrives. Xfce, I believe, is planning on being ported to GTK+3, not sure about MATE but I think they want to do the same. Beside that, there's still plenty of other applications running on GTK+2 (Firefox, GIMP, etc.) and plenty of them running on GTK+3 as well.

As for GIMP, well, it's a bit unfair to say they're "not in a hurry" to do something - they have been busy implementing other stuff (all the major, MAJOR features that came with 2.8, and currently: doing some major plumbing work to port the entire software to GEGL in order to take advantage of GPU, among other things) and are very short on manpower and resources, so the development speed is as good as it can be... From what I remember, GIMP is still planning to port to GTK+3 for 3.0.

I suggest you go read the announcement of Qt 5.1. People looking for Qt Free edition are sent of to another page. So yes the difference are right in front of you. Now it is up to you to accept this.

I suggest you go read the announcement of Qt 5.1 yourself.http://qt.digia.com/Product/Whats-New/Qt-51/http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/0...-5-1-released/
Search the page for "free" or "edition", you won't find both words. The second link offers you to download the "Qt Enterprise commercial version" or the "open source version". The first one contains support, the second one is what everyone else will use - it's a link to the download from the community-driven "qt-project.org".
The difference was discussed enough, I think.

But this discussion is useless. I only mentioned that the term "free edition" is outdated. YOU have to accept that. And now I will stop feeding you